The last decade has seen a considerable number of unsubstantiated and
"reasoned” statements in scientific literature and publicism about Nagorni
Karabakh’s belonging to Armenia. Their aim is to give scientific-theoretical
grounds for the expansionist policy of the notorious "Miatsum”, intending a
territorial and ethnic reunion of the so-called historical Armenia and the
Armenians.

Upon that the propagandists of the idea of re-union, as a rule, referred
to a so-called historical right, based on the statement about a primordial,
historical annexation of Karabakh into Armenia.

In this connection, we would like to bring some judgments of the
Medieval Albanian and Armenian historians and comments on them by modern
researchers of Armenia to the mind of the community and above all, of the
proponents of the idea – "Miatsum” owing to whose use in the political games of
the powerful in the world, an ocean of tears and blood of the innocent people
(the murdered, the maimed, those who were turned into slaves-hostages, the
robbed and those ousted from their lands and homes) has been spilt.

The cited monuments and the comments on them were published in Moscow in
the 1980s.

In 1976 in Moscow "History of Armenia” by the XIII century Armenian
historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi was published in translation from Ancient
Armenian into Russian with Preface and comments by L.A.Khanlaryan.

In the 10th chapter of the monument titled "Brief Description
of the History of the Country Agvank” presented below in the form of a story”,
the author wrote, "And in the 2nd part we placed the chapter about
the apostles of the country Agvank, as our congeners, coreligionists,
particularly that their leaders were Armenian speakers, many of which spoke
Armenian … the people lived together with us in orthodox faith, and all this
allows to speak about both the peoples together (the mentioned work, p.132).

Thus, Kirakos Gandzaketsi sharply distinguished between the two peoples
close to each other in faith and language (but the language of only leaders,
but not of the people as a whole) about whom, according to him, "one should
talk together”.

It is noticeable that the translator and commentator of the monument,
the outstanding Armenian researcher L.A.Khanlaryan considers Armenians and
Albanians as two different peoples.

Thus, commenting on the given fragment, L.A.Khanlaryan draws attention
to the historical friendship of the two (underlined by us – Z.K.)
peoples, referring to an earlier Armenian historical source: the very idea of
friendship, preconditioned by the common economic and cultural life and
political fates of the two neighbouring
peoples (italics is ours – Z.K.) penetrates also through the work of the X
century Armenian historian Moses Kalankatvatsi (here the X century Albanian
historian Moses Kalankatuyski – Z.K.).

Speaking about the adoption of Christianity by this people, the latter
writes, "Consistent with this, the
countries of Armenia and Agvania (italics is ours – Z.K.) have existed up today
in unanimous fraternity and inseparable consent” (See "History of Agvans” Moses
Kaqankatvatsi, p.I,
ch.9).

Thus, according to the unanimous recognition of the three historians of
the X, XIII and XX centuries, Armenia and Albania – these are different countries
with peoples differing from each other. Other historians also hold this
position.

In his "Book of Histories” Arakel Davridzetsi, the Medieval historian of
the XVII century (The translation from Armenian, preface and comments belong to
L.A.Khanlaryan, Moscow, 1973), in chapter 23 "The History of St.Vardapet
Poghos’ Preaching and Life” wrote, "Further the vardapet left the place for the
country of Avgans in Karabakh, a place called Kotuklu” (italics – Z.K.)… (the
mentioned book, p.226).

Thus, unweighed by the ideology of the Armenian expansionism, the
historian wrote in black and white that Karabakh was the country of the Agvans,
but not of the Armenians, and by the way, with the Turkish-Azerbaijani toponym
("Kotoklu” in translation from Azerbaijani means "having roots”).

And again the fact that Agvania was not part of Armenia and that the
Agvans were not Armenians, is attested by L.A. Khanlaryan. In the Preface of
the given book we read that the author of the source speaks in details about
the peoples, neighbouring with the Armenians, Georgians, Albanians (underlined
by us – Z.K.), Persian, Turkish (the mentioned book, p.21).

This very idea, with reference to Armenian historical monuments, is
repeated by L.A. Khanlayran in the comments, "From olden times Armenia has been
divided into two parts: Minor and Major Armenia, which, in their turn, have
been subdivided into small administrative units. Major Armenia, in accordance
with the ancient Armenian sources, bordered on the Caspian, Atrapatakan in the
east, on Syria, Mesopotamia, Assyria in the south, on Minor Armenia in the
west, on Kolkhida, Iberia and Albania in the north (See "History of Armenia” by
Moses Khorenski, P.291, Amend. II).

Thus, Albania was part neither to Major nor Minor Armenia, which is
proved in the present case also by L.A.Khanlaryan’s reference to Moses
Khorenski, the V century Armenian historian.

The Albanians’ ethnic self-consciousness and their confidence in the
sovereignty of their territory – Albania is testified also by the historical
source "Brief History of the Country of Albania (1702-1722)” by Catholicos of
Albania Hasan Jalalyan Esai from the dynasty of the Albanian rulers tracing his
lineage back to the famous ruler of the XIII century Albania – Hassan Jalal.

Thus, the Armenian written history, despite the large scale of
politically conditioned distortion in the last decades of the XX century,
repeatedly maintained from the V century to the 90s of the XX century that
Albanians and Albania are from neither the ethnic nor the territorial point of
view a "primordial historical” part of Armenians and Armenia.

The cited fragments are aimed at the uninformed mass readership. It is
also aimed at that part of informed researchers, journalists and diverse
politicians who either do not know or are reluctant to know the authentic
history of Karabakh and Armenia, and distorting history in their economic and
political interests, instigate a murderous war between the two neighbouring
peoples, who have turned into the hostages of their own as well as of powerful
foreign politicians who consider the Caucasus as a sphere of their political
interests and try to reign by separating.

The precedent of Karabakh, the echo of Karabagh has spread across the
territory of the countries of the former social camp. A considerable part of
the blame for inexpressible horrors of the instigated so-termed inter-ethnic
conflicts of contemporaneity, to which there are often attempts to attach a
confessional character due to political considerations, lies on the ideologists
of Karabakh tragedy.

All should know it, and above all, modern politicians and scholars, who
advocate for the non-existent historical right to Karabakh’s re-union with
Armenia, should do.